On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Dan Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > I notice there are a few bindings and implementations that don't appear to > be covered by schemas in the Tuscany master schema list. > > tuscany-binding-corba > tuscany-binding-hessian > tuscany-binding-gdata > tuscany-binding-gdata2 > tuscany-implementation-jee >
We should not have binding-gdata2 anymore. For the rest, we should have schemas, either from spec or in tuscany namespace when it's a tuscany extension. > From an Eclipse STP tools perspective this means the tools cannot create and > check any these Tuscany options with the STP tools. (Please let me know if > you think there are more). > > There are other special binding and implementation "flavors" (such > tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm and tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode) that I > assume are covered by the parent type schema (e.g. > tuscany-implementation-bpel). > You are right here, there is an SCA specification for the BPEL Extension, and the schema is available at "sca-implementation-bpel.xsd". The tuscany-implementation-bpel-ode is just the runtime pieces based on the ODE BPEL Engine, and tuscany-implementation-bpel-jbpm is just a place holder and has nothing in it. > What says everyone, is this acceptable to not create these via the Eclipse > STP tools? Or should we work on creating schemas for these bindings and > implementations? Or other? > +1 for creating the schemas > > Ramkumar R wrote: >> >> In my understanding, all the non-OSOA extensions are defined in a tuscany >> namespace (http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0), whereas the OSOA >> extension are defined in the namespace >> (http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0). >> >> I believe the additional element that you are talking about is the keyword >> "tuscany:", which shows that this element is from the tuscany namespace. >> >> XSD for Atom binding: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca-binding-atom.xsd >> >> Master schema which pulls all the Tuscany extension: >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.x/modules/assembly-xsd/src/main/resources/tuscany-sca.xsd >> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Dan Becker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm more interested in validation of the extensions and non-OSOA portions >>> of the composite file. For instance, a composite with Atom binding >>> extensions often has an additional element in the reference: >>> <tuscany:binding.atom uri="http://localhost:8084/customer >>> "/> >>> >>> In this particular composite, I see the following attributes in the >>> composite: >>> <composite xmlns="http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; >>> xmlns:tuscany="http://tuscany.apache.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; >>> targetNamespace="http://customer"; >>> name="Consumer"> >>> >>> Is there an XSD for the Atom binding? In the build tree I see many >>> schemas >>> for individual interfaces and bindings, is there one master one which >>> pulls >>> all the Tuscany extensions together? Is there a list on one of our user >>> or >>> development pages? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Luciano Resende wrote: >>> >>>> XML validation happens when the composite is being processed by ours >>>> ArtifactProcessors. during contribution read phase Validation is done >>>> using OSOA XSD schemas, as you mentioned, together with Tuscany >>>> extensions XSDs. >>>> >>>> There are other types of validations, in other phases, but I guess you >>>> are interested just weather or not the Composite is valid based on the >>>> schemas, right ? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Dan Becker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> As many of you know, I speak with the Eclipse.org STP news group and >>>>> try >>>>> to >>>>> help with the support for Tuscany development in the STP tools. >>>>> >>>>> One recent question I think I answered, but would like to bring up and >>>>> verify with the Tuscany group. Our SCA composite files are validated >>>>> through >>>>> the XSD schema "http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0"; which is an OSOA >>>>> specification. >>>>> >>>>> Tuscany supports a number of additional elements and attributes mostly >>>>> for >>>>> extensions such as new bindings and implementation types (e.g. JSONRPC, >>>>> Atom, Spring, etc.) Are these additional elements and attributes >>>>> validated >>>>> via an additional Tuscany schema XSD? Or are most of the extensions >>>>> validated in the validation/resolve code when a contribution is read >>>>> and >>>>> resolved? Or other? I picked the middle choice (validated in the >>>>> resolution >>>>> phase by Tuscany code), but I may be wrong. Any thoughts? > > > -- > Thanks, Dan Becker > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
